IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J.
Mohammad Shahid Bhat and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No.107/2022 in OWP No.148/2014, OWP No.207/2014 and OWP No.208/2014, WP(C) No.235/2021, OWP No.316/2014, WP(C) No.300/2021, OWP No.166/2014, WP(C) No.150/2022, OWP No.139/2014, WP(C) No.134/2022, WP(C) No.247/2022, WP(C) No.1967/2021, CrM(M) No.156/2021 and OWP No.2035/2018 a/w CPOWP No.299/2018
Decided On : 13-05-2022
Insecticides Act, 1968-Sections 9 and 17/18-Benefit of deemed registration would be limited only to those manufacturers or importers who had been importing or manufacturing insecticides immediately before commencement of Section 9 of Act, which appears to be commensurate with coming into force of Insecticides Act of 1968-An unit intending to manufacture a particular insecticide for which registration is mandatory in terms of Act does not get a right to seek provisional registration based upon deemed registration clause of Section 17 and equally so person intending to sell, distribute, stock or transport an insecticide does not get a right to sell, distribute, store or stock an insecticide only upon filing an application before Registration Authority seeking to register said product. (Paras 28, 30 and 39)
Result-Writ Petitions Partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Since common questions of law and fact are involved in the present batch of petitions, it is proposed to deal with them by way of a common judgment and order.
WP(C) No.107/2022
1. The petitioners claim to be farmers of various villages belonging to different districts in the UT of Jammu & Kashmir, who have filed this petition in a representative capacity to protect the interests and welfare of the farmers/orchardists of Districts Srinagar, Shopian, Baramulla, Pulwama, Kulgam, Budgam, Ganderbal and Bandipora. The grievance highlighted in the a/w connected matters present petition is that even when the tree spray oil/horticulture mineral oil, which is being sprayed in the orchards in the UT of Jammu & Kashmir is a scheduled item in the Insecticides Act of 1968 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and is required to be regulated strictly and that even when no manufacturing, sale, import, transportation and distribution/supply and stocking of insecticides can be permitted without registration in terms of the provisions of the Act and without a licence, all the aforementioned activities were being permitted to continue in gross violation of the provisions of the said Act and that not only were the manufacturing activity being permitted without registration, even its stocking and sale was permitted freely.
2. It was urged that manufacturing, dumping and use of unregistered insecticides was risky, as even sub-standard poisonous and spurious products were being permitted to be used in the orchards, which would otherwise prove fatal to human beings in particular and the eco-system in general. In that view of the matter, the petitioners pray that no manufacturer of supplier be allowed to manufacture, dump or supply the horticulture mineral oil/tree spray oil in the Jammu & Kashmir inter alia without proper registration and a licence.
3. In the reply filed by the Director Agriculture Kashmir, a stand is taken that with a view to curb the menace of sale and stocking of unregistered tree spray oil/ horticulture mineral oil in the Valley, a circular dated 10.01.2022 has been issued, whereby supply, dumping and distribution of all such tree spray oil/horticulture mineral oil is prohibited in regard to those who are not registered with the Central Insecticides Board (CIB). Since, reliance has been placed upon circular dated 10.01.2022, which is also a subject matter of challenge in the connected petitions, it becomes necessary to reproduce the same hereunder:
Department of Horticulture
Civil Secretariat, Jammu
Circular
To regulate the import, manufacturing, sale, transport, distribution and use of insecticides with a view to prevent risk to human beings or animals and matter indicated herewith, the Insecticides Act, 1968 is in force. As per sub section 1 of section 9, any person desiring to import or manufacture any insecticide may apply to the Registration Committee of Central Insecticides Board for registration of such insecticides to enable to get manufacturing licence issued from the UT of J&K under sub-section 1 of section 13.
Further, Tree Spray Oil (TSO) being sprayed in apple orchards in J&K is scheduled item in the Insecticides Act, 1968. Therefore, no Tree Spray Oil (TSO) Manufacturer/ Distributor can supply, stock or distribute the Tree Spray Oil (TSO)/Horticulture Mineral Oil (HMO) unless being registered under sub-section 1 of section 9 with the Central Insecticides Board.
Against the above background, Director Law Enforcement, J&K (Law Enforcement) and the Director General Horticulture, Kashmir (User Department) shall ensure that the supply, dumping and distribution of all such Tree Spray Oil (TSO)/Horticulture Mineral Oil (HMO) shall not take place by those who are not registered with the Central Insecticides Board.
Any declaration in this regard will be viewed seriously.
Sd/-
(Farooq Ahmad Wani)
Under Secretary to the Government
No. Horti-Plg/87/2021 (CC-83424) Dated: 10.01.2022”
OW
SupremeToday
The main legal principle established is that under the Insecticides Act, a change in the source of import for a registered molecule requires the application to be made under Section 9(3) and not Sect....
A licensed dealer of insecticides is protected under Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, and cannot be penalized without evidence of wrongdoing.
Distributors and dealers cannot be held liable for misbranding if the insecticide was received and sold in its original sealed condition.
Interim order deciding merits without counter-affidavit is appealable judgment under Letters Patent; Sections 9(3) and 9(3B) of Insecticides Act apply distinctly.
Dealers cannot be held responsible for misbranding under the Insecticides Act when the samples were drawn from sealed containers and there was no evidence of tampering.
The court held that mere possession of banned insecticide without evidence of intent to sell does not constitute an offence under the Insecticides Act, reaffirming strict adherence to statutory proce....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of prior sanction under Section 31 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, and the specific regulations governing the sale of bioproducts....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.